Legend of Tarzan has received an avalanche of criticism that comes at the movie from a number of different angles. One of the most popular angles is that it simply should never have been made — that in 2016, we have evolved to the point that a story about a white main achieving success in Africa (with “success” being defined as domination over native Africans, human and animal) just shouldn’t be made. Of the many reviews and commentaries that took this position, I found the following one to be more coherent and thoughtful than most. Please note that I’m not saying that I agree with it. But Legend of Tarzan has delivered a “cultural moment” of sorts in which not just the current Tarzan movie, but the entire notion of Tarzan is under attack.

Here are some of the juicier bits from the review, with my notes at the bottom:

Let’s face it: the Tarzan tales, as created by Edgar Rice Burroughs, are fundamentally colonialist, ethnocentric, and racialist. They’re about a white man, an English aristocrat, who, though raised by apes, becomes an African leader, then eventually, a member of the House of Lords. Blue blood rules; blue blood, in fact, could be said to be divinely appointed to rule. Primitive African tribes survive thanks to his protection; animals, no matter what their genus or species, obey his commands. All of which make a modern movie treatment of Tarzan, uh, problematic. (Note 1)

The new Tarzan movie, The Legend of Tarzan, seems at least to have recognized that this is a problem, though its solutions are at best half-baked and at worst appalling. It tries three solutions. First, in structure and tone, this movie follows the template and structure of superhero movies. Second, Jane (Margot Robbie), Tarzan’s wife, isn’t so much an imperialist white woman, condescending in her treatment of natives. She’s an African–she was raised in an African village; the Africans she knows are dear friends, equals in every sense. And third, the movie puts Tarzan in a specific historical context. Every superhero needs a super villain, and we get a good one here, Leon Rom (Christoph Waltz), agent to loathsome Belgian King Leopold II. (Note 2)

***

Mbongo and Tarzan finally do confront each other, in what I frankly thought was the best scene in the movie. Mbongo hates Tarzan, because he killed his teenaged son; Tarzan killed the kid, because the kid killed Tarzan’s beloved ape mother. The two men, as they fight, realize how similar they are, and how destructive and unworthy their enmity. And reconcile. The scene works because Hounsou is so terrific, and it plays to Skarsgård’s rather limited strengths as an actor. The movie could have ended then, and been quite satisfying, I think, if you could have included some way to rescue Jane. (Note 3)

***

And finally, Williams issues his report of Leopold’s intended atrocities to the British authorities. I think we’re meant to see that report as putting an end to the worst of the King’s atrocities, though the British lords who receive the report seem, in the movie, to greet it with decided equivocation. Still, like any superhero movie, the good guys win, the bad guys lose, and moral justice prevails.

Except, of course, nothing like that occurred. First of all, Leon Rom wasn’t eaten by alligators in 1886; he decorated his house by Stanley Falls with the skulls of murdered Congolese, and died a wealthy man in Brussels in 1924. Williams did deliver a report of Force Publique atrocities, but it was widely ignored. And the nefarious plans for the brutal subjugation of the Congo that Williams discovers? The forts, the rail lines, the savagery of Leopold’s private army? All of that happened. Leopold grew fantastically wealthy (though mostly through rubber, not diamonds), while treating the native peoples in the region with unprecedented viciousness. Best estimate; 10 million murdered. Ten million people. That’s just an estimate; it might have been fifteen million.

(Things haven’t improved. The Congo has been, since 1998, the site of the bloodiest of civil wars, with millions dead. All unpleasant vestiges of colonialist exploitation and enslavement).

Tarzan, of course, is a fictional character, and this movie tells a fictional story. That’s fine, I don’t actually think Iron Man exists either. But this Tarzan ties itself into historical events, and employs historical characters; Leon Rom, George Washington Williams, King Leopold II. And it shows Tarzan defeating Rom, and Williams defeating Leopold. And those things never occurred. Which means I left the theater with a distinctly queasy feeling in the pit of my stomach.

Tarzan is a problematic character nowadays. Making a straightforwardly Edgar Rice Burroughs Tarzan movie in 2016 would seem a bit like remaking one of those ’40s comedies in which husbands spanking their wives was treated as jolly fun. Uh, no, not anymore. But this movie strains at a colonialist gnat and swallows a genocide camel. It struck me as bizarrely ill conceived. It’s a movie that relies on its audience knowing absolutely nothing about African history. I found it insulting and infuriatingly obtuse. You can’t just do that, just sweep the wanton and brutal murder of fifteen million people under the carpet, because they get in the way of your big CGI movie climax. (Note 4)

It’s a shame, too, because it’s an attractive enough movie, and there are scenes that work well. Hounsou is terrific in too-small a role, and I can’t say enough about Margot Robbie’s sensational Jane. Robbie is the most open-hearted of actresses, absolute in her commitment to the role, and courageous in her acting choices. Sam Jackson does wonderful Sam Jackson things, and all the Tarzan stuff was well executed; the yell, the flying in trees, a scene where he rolls around felinely with lions. Through some combination of gym time, anabolic steroids and CGI, Skarsgård looks terrific, though his performance never quite grabbed me. And, as usual, Christoph Waltz was a sensational villain.

And I can understand the impulse to turn Tarzan into a superhero. But they placed him in a specific historical context, which they then got horribly, unforgivably wrong. As we left the theater, my wife and daughter gave it a B-minus. As a, you know, movie, I’d agree. But I’m not inclined to forgive it. F.

Note 1: Primitive African Tribes and Animals Under Tarzan’s Control

At first I thought — wait a minute. “Primitive Africa tribes survive thanks to his protection” ??? But then I guess that’s the explanation of the finale — that without Tarzan’s help the 20,000 mercenaries would have arrived and wiped out the tribes, but with Tarzan’s help they are defeated and thus the African tribes survive. Is this a legitimate point, then? They are, after all, “primitive African tribes” — meaning they live a natural life with limited encroachment by civilization. They are under attack by Europeans with technology. It has always struck me that in that situation, the idea that it would take another European — Tarzan in this instance — to counter the technological advantages of the European baddies, is somehow not offensive. That is, how can you expect technologically undeveloped tribes to fend off gatling guns and so forth?

Then I would look into other aspects of the depiction of the natives. Are they ever depicted as stupid, inferior, or backward? I don’t think so. The Waziri-Kuba are depicted as relatively advanced, leaving peacefully, and fully capable of operating European weapons when they get their hands on them. Mbonga’s tribe is depicted as war-like and proud. Mbonga himself is depicted quite sympathetically, with great dignity, etc. Still, probably not enough to do all this.

I was also struck by the fact that, for example, when Tarzan says let’s go this way, through Mangani land, to get to Opar, the tribesmen say no, we can go this way, and use the train — and Tarzan says okay, that makes sense. That’s a small moment but an important one. Tarzan doesn’t have all the answers.

But there are also unfortunate moments that reinforce the stereotypes that for the most part the movie avoids — such as the tribesman cheering Tarzan and Williams as they set off from the train. That made me cringe a little, and I’m not sure what it gained for the movie. Then at the end, in the finale, there is exactly one shot of tribesmen arriving on the train and jumping off to confront the Belgians, and then nothing throughout the rest of the finale. How much I would have given for a few cutaways showing the tribal people holding their own against the Belgians —in essence, creating the impression that Tarzan was battling Rom personally in an attempt to save Jane, while the tribesmen were battling the larger force, and achieving their own freedom. Thus at the end, when they cheered, they woudl have been cheering themselves, not cheering Tarzan as their savior.

As to “animals, no matter what their genus or species, obey his commands” — well, that’s n0t true, but I can see how he might be confused on this. The only animals who obey Tarzan’s commands are the mangani and the lions whom he has known since they were a cub. In the finale, what is actually going on, but not explained or depicted particularly clearly, is that Tarzan, with the help of the specific lions he has known since childhood, and with an assist from at least one Mangani (Akut?) are herding the wildebeest own into the town. The wildebeest are not acting at Tarzan’s command. And the Mangani only act at Tarzan’s command after Rom and his people have killed a bunch of them with technology that is impossible for them to defend against. But anyway — ti’s an exaggeration and misreading of what’s in the movie and the books to say that all animals obey Tarzan’s command.

Jane (Margot Robbie), Tarzan’s wife, isn’t so much an imperialist white woman, condescending in her treatment of natives. She’s an African–she was raised in an African village; the Africans she knows are dear friends, equals in every sense.

Well, if this works for Jane, why not Tarzan? Yes, he makes a point at the beginning that he’s John Clayton III, House of Lords and all that — but when he arrives in Afirca he is as much at home as she, and his relationship with the tribe is like hers. He loves, respects, accepts them as equals just as much as she does.

As for the historical context — I like this in principal but the author is about to expose some of the pitfalls of this approach in the next section, so I’ll defer commenting on this.

Note 3: Mbonga and Tarzan — Movie Could Have Ended There

It’s an interesting concept — that the film could have ended with the confrontation with Mbonga. There is some merit to that. Doing do would have allowed for more buildup to this scene.

Note 4: The Historical Context and Accuracy

The basic premise here is that by taking on the historical context and then giving it a happy ending when it didn’t have one, the movie is dishonest and does an extreme disservice by telling a story of justice prevailing when it didn’t. Rom didn’t die; Leopold didn’t get stopped. The genocide continued and horrible things happened, whereas in the movie it seems like Tarzan stopped it from happening. I think he’s onto something here. On the one hand, if I’m feeling charitable, I would say that it’s a fantasy adventure and the historical references meaning that millions of people who otherwise never heard of Leopold or Rom or the Congo atrocities would at least know that something like that existed, so that’s positive. But by making it seem that everything was happy ending …. hmmm. Queasy — yeah, I get that.

How could that have been addressed?

Well, I don’t think you have to change the movie, but maybe at the end, after the scene with Williams delivering his report, and Tarzan/Jane living happily in Africa with their tribal friends, it might have been possible to put up a few graphics about what really happened. Such as — over a picture of the real George Washington Williams: “Sadly, the report by George Washington Williams had little effect, and Leopold’s rape of the Congo continued for a generation, with more than 15 million deaths attributed to the monarch.” And then another one, perhaps: “The historical Leon Rom survived and continued his depradations, eventually dying a wealthy man in 1924.)

Would that have been too much of a downer? Maybe. But I do think that when the movie decided to “go there” in terms of historical context, this did become a problem. Not to the extent that I think it’s fair to excoriate the movie over it’s failure to set the record straight …. but still.

8 comments

I never got the impression that Tarzan and the villagers had stopped Leopold’s incursion into Africs. The skirmish in Boma was a local event and Tarzan’s in counter with Rom was a personal one. The greater picture was obviously between a King who had been granted Agrican territories by a European consortium of nations. No way a skirmish in Boma,an out of the way town, was going to dictate the future of nations. William’s report to the British lords and prime ministers didn’t look decisive either. It generated a letter of censorship from Britain to Leopold. It’s difficult to imagine,with the stakes so high thatLeopold would put much stock in that letter. He was a bankrupt king with a source of great wealth in Africa. In my mind,only naive children would think a letter of censorship would put a stop to this level of greed and aquisitiveness. History shows us that it takes a war on a major scale to put a stop to such crimes against humanity. It also, shows us that very few wars between countries are fought on behalf of humanity.It usually takes a civil uprising to bring about any such change abd then, only if the rebels win.

This is absolutely me – “It’s a movie that relies on its audience knowing absolutely nothing about African history. ” – I know nothing.

Now if you want me to talk about Australopithecines in Africa, I know a lot more about that the political history. It’s both a naive and annoying assumption that everyone shares your specific knowledge base and obsessions. So much of the criticism of the film has been wrapped with a bow of the viewer’s personal issues.

“But there are also unfortunate moments that reinforce the stereotypes that for the most part the movie avoids — such as the tribesman cheering Tarzan and Williams as they set off from the train. That made me cringe a little, and I’m not sure what it gained for the movie. ”

Ordinarily, I think your analysis and viewpoint is dead-on, but you really lost me there. My take-away was that by cheering the tribesmen were sending their encouragement and best wishes to or Tarzan and George Washington William at the start of a very hazardous trek through mangani territory to catch up to Rom. This is similar to the Arab bedouins cheering Indiana Jones riding off on horseback in pursuit of the Nazi convoy carrying away the Ark of the Covenant in Raider of the Lost Ark.

Note 1: Primitive African Tribes and Animals Under Tarzan’s Control

This gets to into the so-called “white savior” pejorative that a lot of critics have been using. My impression of Tarzan in print and film has been that he never “controls” or “dictates” but when circumstances required, Tarzan will step up and help. In 1978’s Superman movie, think of how Christopher Reeve responded to Margot Kidder’s question of who he was. “A friend.” That is a Tarzan — a friend. At the end of 1963’s Tarzan’s Three Challenges, when the young ruler’s nanny asked Jock Mahoney what he had gained during the adventure, Jock replied: “The greatest gift of all – friendship.” I think that is pure ERB — the thing you do for friendship and love.

And what would have happened to Jane? Mormon Iconoclast is again being self-indulgent and clueless about proper story structure. Could this scene had an even better pay-off? Sure, but any movie — even Gone with the Wind or Lawrence of Arabia — has only a finite time to tell its story.

Note 4: The Historical Context and Accuracy

Here, perhaps you and Mormon Iconoclast are correct. Certainly history unfolded more tragically that LOT lets on. However, the important thing to consider is that Tarzan’s friends are safe and that serves the movie. Perhaps this may spur film-goers to read about the history of the Belgium Congo and the life of George Washington Williams. Now that is a victory worthy of Tarzan!

Ordinarily, I think your analysis and viewpoint is dead-on, but you really lost me there. My take-away was that by cheering the tribesmen were sending their encouragement and best wishes to or Tarzan and George Washington William at the start of a very hazardous trek through mangani territory to catch up to Rom. This is similar to the Arab bedouins cheering Indiana Jones riding off on horseback in pursuit of the Nazi convoy carrying away the Ark of the Covenant in Raider of the Lost Ark.

Maybe I was just overly primed to be on the lookout for “white savior” stuff . . . . overly sensitized to that, perhaps.

The film critics were looking for anything they could misinterpret and twist into the “white savior” trope,whether it existed or not. At the point that Tarzan and Williams left the train, Tarzan had only one goal,to get Jane back. He had already freed the tribesman he found on the train. He left the train,to cross the dangerous Mabgani territory because it was the faster route. . Some of the tribesman, the ones from the village Jane was raised in and that had adopted him wanted to come with him but he thought it would be too dangerous since his relationship with the Mangani was uncertain. That’s why I thought they were cheering him on with encouragement. He was their freind ,a brother to some of them in certain ways as Jane was like a sister and they were wishing him well. I got a feeling of comradery and shared purpose from that scene.

When they arrived in Boma,later, and fought by his side I thought it was out of a desire for vengeance as well as to help Tarzan free Jane. The critics,on the other hand, chose to see it differently. It’s one of the few scenes in the entire film that they could twist to suit their purpose mainly because it was Tarzan that freed the tribesmen from their chains, not because he was playing “white savior” but because he happened upon them on his way to get Jane. Tribesmen from the village accompanied him to get their family members back and they were prepared to fight at his sideline. The fact that his villagers along with other tribesman from other villages were on the train instead of with Jane and Rom was accidental. So, he freed them ,as their fellow tribesman were prepared to do. The fact that he was Tarzan meant that he could do it single handedly with a little back up from them and Williams ,that’s all. At some point in the movie,it was necessary to show how strong Tarzan was against other men and this was it. It didn’t mean he was playing ” white savior”.

This is really getting tiring. For one thing, Tarzan in the novels did not become an African leader. There’s no substantial pro-colonialist white saviour trope in the novels. They were adventure tales – none of the critics have read the stories.

Do they think that Yates and the screenwriters were unaware of the African history they depicted? Let’s face it – none of these critics had a clue about the Belgian Congo prior to this film. They just googled “King Leopold’s Ghost” and were skimmed wikipedia. Case in point is the author of this article. Estimates are not 10 million murdered – that number is the depopulation estimate which includes declining birth rate and exodus.

The sad thing is that the film set out to raise awareness for this period of African history, opening itself up to criticism about Tarzan acting as a white saviour (which is a feature of the movie and not the novels) and many critics are just being intellectual snobs about it. Their vitriol is misplaced, but in the end this movie has done a remarkable thing, namely augmented awareness for African history. None of these guys knew any of this before they set out to slam the movie.

Well said, Demos. It would really be interesting to know how many of these critics actually knew about Leopold II and the Congo before, as you say, they heard about the movie and googled it. But we’ll never get them to admit it.

Re Tarzan being an African leader …. well, he became the leader of the mangani and believe it are not there are those who call that colonialism/paternalism. Yup. And then he became, briefly, “White Chief of the Waziri” in Return of Tarzan. But I agree . . . “there is no substantial pro-colonialist white savior trope in the novels.”

The Tarzan Files and The John Carter Files are independent web resources for history, commentary, and criticism purposes, and are not owned, sponsored by, or affiliated with any third party including Edgar Rice Burroughs, Inc, Warner Bros Studios, or DIsney. For a full discussion of the Nominative Fair Use legal framework under which the sites operate, please see the "Legal" page.